Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Feminism: chat

Original poster

man who cannot understand the issue of consent must be allowed to pursue sexual relationships

30 replies

ProstheticConscience · 03/10/2019 07:15

I'm baffled at this decision. It puts him at risk as way as everyone else.
The judge said "JB was “entitled to make the same mistakes which all human beings can, and do, make in the course of a lifetime”."
However I also see that things are drifting into the territory of punishing people for things they haven't done.
Whose rights are more important here? My opinion is that others have more right not to be harmed.

OP posts:
SlipperyLizard · 03/10/2019 07:30

I was just about to post about this. I find this decision disturbing, especially the idea that when men rape women it is simply a “mistake” akin to any other that people make in their life.

I don’t think this decision is in the individual’s interest, either, as it puts him at risk of being convicted of a sexual assault/rape and going to prison where he would be very vulnerable.

His right to a “private and family life” should not outweigh women’s right to safety, and to be protected (as far as possible) from sexual assault/rape.

This kind of decision is also unhelpful fodder for those who would tear up the Human Rights Act

Broken11Girl · 03/10/2019 07:37

WTF
NO-one has a right to sex FFS.
It's that simple.
He cannot understand consent so absolutely needs to be supervised for everyone's sake.

ArnoldWhatshisknickers · 03/10/2019 07:43

This is the wrong decision both for society and for the very vulnerable man in question.

The local authority is correct, they have a duty to protect him from being criminalised and a duty to protect women, especially those who may be similarly vulnerable from him.

The court and confused about the evolutionary drive to have sex. It is an innate desire to have sex, not an innate decision. In any species there are members who are not 'permitted' to have sex despite their desire because reproduction is not at the control of the individual, we all have to 'persuade' other group members of our 'worthiness'.

RushianDisney · 03/10/2019 07:45

Who are these judges suggesting that sex is a fundamental right? It fucking isn't. End of.

Lumene · 03/10/2019 07:57

Would he say that about a driver applying for a licence without the ability to make the judgement of when to drive and when not to? Can you imagine? “This driver is entitled to make the same mistakes as other drivers can and do.”

The judgement is made because the potential harm to women - of rape - has been dismissed as unimportant.

Lumene · 03/10/2019 07:59

Also this:

I find this decision disturbing, especially the idea that when men rape women it is simply a “mistake” akin to any other that people make in their life.

Is this judge also proclaiming on rape cases?!?

TalkingintheDark · 03/10/2019 08:03

Dismissed as unimportant by a woman judge, no less. (Well, I presume Mrs Justice Roberts actually is a woman.)

HmmConfusedAngrySad

TalkingintheDark · 03/10/2019 08:05

Excellent analogy re the driver, Lumene.

And yes. “Mistake* Shock

Lamahaha · 03/10/2019 08:09

The court and confused about the evolutionary drive to have sex. It is an innate desire to have sex, not an innate decision.

It's also a drive, unequally distributed among humans. Some of us have more of it, some less, some none at all, and all three strengths might manifest in a single person at various periods in their life. Does this mean that those who have a weak or no drive, should automatically submit to those who have a strong drive?
What about the rights of the latter not to have sex?

andyoldlabour · 03/10/2019 08:09

Yet another example of protecting the minority (who may or may not have mental issues) and putting the majority at risk.

BreatheAndFocus · 03/10/2019 08:19

My first thought is what is/was the level of supervision he had before the court case?

Was it unnecessarily strict or was it reasonable? The best answer, IMO, would be that this person is supervised at an appropriate level. That would protect both him and any women he approaches.

I did find the comment near the end about him having capacity a little confusing. Did I read that right? If he has capacity, can he not be helped to gain consent whether he understands why he has to do this or not?

TheProdigalKittensReturn · 03/10/2019 08:23

"This person doesn't have the capacity to understand that shooting people is wrong, but we should issue him a gun license anyway"

Eastie77 · 03/10/2019 09:04

According to the psychologist JB "cannot understand that a woman’s consent is relevant in sexual situations, nor that attempting sex without consent is likely to be a criminal offence" yet the judge has ruled it's discriminatory to rule he still cannot pursue sex.

So that's JB's rights covered but what about the rights of the women he runs the very real risk of sexually assaulting? The report mentions he presents a particular risk to vulnerable women. It's very worrying. We can only hope and trust they have safeguards in place but it's hard to see how they will enforce this since JB has the right to pursue sex however he sees fit.

bd67th · 03/10/2019 09:09

The local authority is expected to appeal against the decision.

I hope they win.

The judge said that insisting that JB understands the issue of consent before being allowed to pursue sexual relationships would be discrimination because it would “impose on him a burden which a capacitous individual may not share”.

Mrs Justice Roberts ruled that the man, who has autism with impaired cognition and lives in a supported residential placement, has a “fundamental right to sex”.

This is judicial capture. A male having a "right to sex" is now case law. This is the first ruling on the path towards legal brothels, state-issued brothel vouchers, and women as public property.

How do we fight this?

bd67th · 03/10/2019 09:39

Separate post because I suspect it will be deleted Hmm

How do we fight this? I can't see a way. If the judiciary have been captured, we have no lawful mechanism to defend our bodies any more. Rape is already de facto legal, will any women this guy rapes even see him go to jail? He's been judged not to have capacity to understand consent now, I bet that will be used to acquit him in criminal court.

Do I kill myself? Do I arm myself? If it's ok for TPAs to carry trans flag baseball bats and rainbow hammers, can I have a two-handed labrys painted in suffragette green, white, and purple? I'm not actually joking about suicide or self-defence: if the law won't back women, we've got nothing else we can do to protect ourselves.

Tyrotoxicity · 03/10/2019 10:23

The judge said that insisting that JB understands the issue of consent before being allowed to pursue sexual relationships would be discrimination

WTAF?

Surely understanding what consent is should be a prerequisite for ANYONE who wants to be allowed to pursue sexual relationships?

Instead of saying "Oh, this man's not capable of understanding consent so it would be unfair to expect him to ask before attempting sex" might it be better if we insisted all men demonstrate an understanding of consent before they're allowed to pursue sexual relationships?

(I don't know how we fight it; I'm going to be stuck on shouting about it for a while I think.)

Tyrotoxicity · 03/10/2019 10:25

He's been judged not to have capacity to understand consent now, I bet that will be used to acquit him in criminal court.

I bet you're right - but it should be the opposite.

There's absolutely no way a jury can be convinced he had a reasonable belief in consent because he's been judged not to understand what consent is.

Whatwouldbigfatfannydo · 03/10/2019 10:28

I honestly thought the thread title was a typo. Utterly horrified by this but, unfortunately, by no means surprised. The patriarchy is well and truly grinding women down.

woopdedoodle · 03/10/2019 11:19

Who is bring this to the court? The man himself? His family? His social workers?

crankysaurus · 03/10/2019 11:44

Be doesn't know how not to rape, bit well take away his care plan so he can 'make the same mistakes as the rest of us'. FFS. Glad the LA are going to appeal, that'll be failing a vulnerable person in going to jail for something he won't understand AND putting women at likely risk.

LassoOfTruth · 03/10/2019 11:50

I read this story this morning and couldn't believe my eyes. This decision puts the (already vulnerable) man at risk as well as, obviously, the women he comes into contact with. This judge determines that sexual assault/rape = 'a mistake'?! There surely has to be ways he can be supported to have a healthy love life without totally disregarding the safety of other humans.

bd67th · 03/10/2019 13:16

Do English courts accept amicus briefs?

CuriousaboutSamphire · 03/10/2019 13:28

@woopdedoodle From the judgement, which I hope I read/remember correctly, the LA... the same LA that is now appealing the result. Which gives me hope that this will be the case that forces us, society, and the court system to work this one through properly.

Though I suspect that it will end up with conflicting rights being upheld...as is very often the case.

Michelleoftheresistance · 03/10/2019 14:22

Reading the judgement it's not a case of risking punishing someone for something they may or may not do; he has already harassed and sent inappropriate sexual texts etc. There is obviously a long history of issues and events that the LA have been unable to manage in any other way and it's a case that they foresee inevitable escalation as he pursues this sexual contact without understanding the need for his chosen person to consent or being able to recognise their signals to stop, that contact is unwanted. This to me reads like the LA knowing it's only a matter of time before he commits a serious assault.

The line about a fundamental right to sex is appalling and should be challenged, not with relation to this case but as an unacceptable statement in any context. If someone has a right to sex then by extension someone else is compelled to provide it.